Jon Spaihts interview with Empire Magazine

[Virgil]

Congratulations to the guys and girls featured 

[Blacklabel]

It would be nice to receive a pm with the doc anyone?

[Cvalda]

by the way Cvalda.. .Hell Screen?  ahem.. 

Don't worry, I have it saved Still need to finish Tom Reamy's Blind Voices first

[Blacklabel]

"squee" 

[ikarop]

You're back! 

I needed to revel in this alleged glory

Someone post a screenshot, please--I NEED A SCREENSHOT!

It's comments from the front-page comment section mainly so no sets.

[Cvalda]

It's comments from the front-page comment section mainly so no sets.

Damn Still, better than nothing!

[ShadowPred]

Immortality, people...you have been given immortality.

[Nightmare Asylum]

Immortality, people...you have been given immortality.

Is this the part where the Red Queen Engineer gets angry and yells "Off with your head!"?

[Cvalda]

Immortality, people...you have been given immortality.

[ikarop]

My logo has been given immortality too haha. I'm stupidly happy for that.

[DaddyYautja]

E L A B O R A T I O N

Summer, 2015

James Bond films just celebrated their 50 year anniversary....
I think we all know what a Bond villain moment means.

Hence my immediate surprise that one could find a scene that currently reads like a verging on a parody Bond villain moment, 'beautiful' or 'movie making'. I elaborated on my earlier statement in the hope that you would elaborate on yours. I guess that was too much to ask of a discussion board. 

I dont know if anyone has told you this but.... not everyone thinks like you. This is whyi didnt not see this scene like some Bond villain thing.

If you wanted to know why i said what i wrote you could've just asked instead of repeating your Bond thing. Because, like i said, i think pretty much everyone knows what that mean. Saying it again isnt really going to drive me to explain my post since it really had nothing to do with it.

Anyway, the way i picture the scene has the facehugger moving about in a natural state not seen in movies and i think that would be an awesome sight. In movies all they do is run or jump on people's faces and that's it. Seeing an Alien with some different behavior patterns is something interesting to me. 

[Gazz]

E L A B O R A T I O N

Summer, 2015

James Bond films just celebrated their 50 year anniversary....
I think we all know what a Bond villain moment means.

Hence my immediate surprise that one could find a scene that currently reads like a verging on a parody Bond villain moment, 'beautiful' or 'movie making'. I elaborated on my earlier statement in the hope that you would elaborate on yours. I guess that was too much to ask of a discussion board. 

I dont know if anyone has told you this but.... not everyone thinks like you. This is whyi didnt not see this scene like some Bond villain thing.

You clearly don't and that's fine since normally conversations start with two opposing opinions. I thought by re-establishing and elaborating on my previous comment (which I didn't know if you'd read) in reference to your 'movie making scene' statement, it would coax out an elaboration of your own. I guess that was just a little too much to ask.

Saying it again isnt really going to drive me to explain my post since it really had nothing to do with it.

Except I countered that the scene in which you had labelled 'movie making' was verging on parody. It was a clear response to your comment and expressed surprise at the notion it could be viewed in such a radically different light. 

Rather than argue otherwise you felt it more appropriate to count minutes and make a somewhat confusing point that I should have assumed your knowledge of the Bond series and the actions of it's villains... despite the fact we're posting on an unrelated website and I have no idea if you've seen a Bond film in your life 

Anyway, the way i picture the scene has the facehugger moving about in a natural state not seen in movies and i think that would be an awesome sight.

Except Spaihts does not describe the Facehugger as moving about in it's natural state. Spaiht's refers to it as being 'caressed' out of an egg to be handled as if a 'kitten', as a way to toy with an immobile Shaw. That terribly devalues the ferocity of the creature in my eyes. Besides the creatures already have a 'natural state'. It's how we first see them in Alien.

[DaddyYautja]

You clearly don't and that's fine since normally conversations start with two opposing opinions. I thought by re-establishing and elaborating on my previous comment (which I didn't know if you'd read) in reference to your 'movie making scene' statement, it would coax out an elaboration of your own. I guess that was just a little too much to ask.

Except I countered that the scene in which you had labelled 'movie making' was verging on parody. It was a clear response to your comment and expressed surprise at the notion it could be viewed in such a radically different light. 

Rather than argue otherwise you felt it more appropriate to count minutes and make a somewhat confusing point that I should have assumed your knowledge of Bond and that actions of it's villains... despite the fact we're posting on an unrelated website and I have no idea if you've seen a Bond film in your life 

I say again, if you wanted me to elaborate on my point you should have just asked. There is no need for me to know your view of the scene if you want to know my opinion about why i have such praise for that particular scene. And since your opinion on the scene has absolutely no bearing on what i think your coaxing served no purpose. So, one more time, you should've just asked.

Except Spaihts does not describe the Facehugger as moving about in it's natural state. Spaiht's refers to it as being 'caressed' out of an egg to be handled as if a 'kitten', as a way to toy with an immobile Shaw. That terribly devalues the ferocity of the creature in my eyes. Besides the creatures already have a 'natural state'. It's how we first see them in Alien.

Here is some more knowledge for you; A screen writer has to write the screenplay in a language that can be understood by all the people working on them film. That basically means describing things in a way that people who dont necessarily know anything about the world *gasp* can understand.

So when he says " so he can handle the thing like a kitten. It doesn't want him; it's not interested." it doesnt mean he ACTUALLY handles it the same exact way a person would handle a cat and it's not movie around like a cat. Those are just descriptions to aid in the making of the visual.

Seriously as an exercise why dont you read a script of a movie you know very well and see if what is written in exactly word for word what is in the script 100% of the time.

And can you elaborate how it "devalues the ferocity"? Cause the scene does include ferocity when the facehugger is exposed to Shaw. 

[Gazz]

I say again, if you wanted me to elaborate on my point you should have just asked. There is no need for me to know your view of the scene if you want to know my opinion about why i have such praise for that particular scene. And since your opinion on the scene has absolutely no bearing on what i think your coaxing served no purpose. So, one more time, you should've just asked.

Was it not clear enough that I wanted you to? As I've said, discussions are usually sparked by two opposing opinions and I was providing you with the necessary information in order to move forward with a debate (it's usually a requirement for these things). Rather than respond accordingly you opted for snark and minute counting. Had I known the pedantry I would be faced with for simply attempting to engage in discussion I really don't think I would have bothered.

So when he says " so he can handle the thing like a kitten. It doesn't want him; it's not interested." it doesnt mean he ACTUALLY handles it the same exact way a person would handle a cat and it's not movie around like a cat. Those are just descriptions to aid in the making of the visual.

Your response is that when Spaiht's says 'David can handle the facehugger like a kitten' he does not mean that 'David can handle the facehugger like a kitten'. Flawless.

See I understand that script writers often use certain words and sentences to convey ideas or scenes (c'mon now, bear with me!). Although the facehugger does not resemble or move like a cat (as we know), Spaiht's still relates that scene to the handling of a harmless kitten because that is the image he wishes to create in the readers mind. And it's not an image I would like associate with a facehugger creature as it devalues the creature's ferocity.  Coupling this image with the actual content of the scene (David monologuing and tormenting Shaw with the facehugger) renders it completely ridiculous in my mind. At least in it's current description.

And can you elaborate how it "devalues the ferocity"?

The facehugger creatures have two natural states. They're dormant in an egg and they attack when a potential victim is close, smothering and impregnating them. Here we see it 'caressed' out of an egg and handled like a kitten before being 'exposed' to Shaw. This ferocious creature is treated as and likened to a common (and harmless) household pet before being told/shown who to attack.

[SpeedyMaxx]

Golly, walk out for an hour or two and everyone's ill tempered.